The process goes like this: 1. Ignore all praise or 4-5 star reviews (those people are generally happy with their product and purchase, and rarely give good feedback on said product's flaws and faults)2. Start reading reviews from the most negative.3. Find out what those reviews actually complain about (sometimes it is the product, sometimes something else like shipment time or cost or whatever)4. Find the pattern. (Are more than 50% of the negative reviews about a specific product flaw? 40%? 20%?)

Yep. And...to a very large extent, the "competition" for the 5DIV isn't Nikon, but Canon's real challenge is to try to get people to upgrade from the very capable 5DIII. I can easily see myself skipping a generation if they do not come out with something remarkable. Granted, upgrades is only part of the market of potential buyers, but I have to think it is a significant part of the market.

Read Nikon Guru Thom Hogan's blog, www.bythom.com to get an idea of Nikon's current real problems.

They also complain about things that are not problems. Things like my Nikon D800 files are too big. They bought 36Mp 'cuz it was a BIG number (BIG is good, right?), when in truth 12Mp was more than they needed. Typical BS you see on all forums.

I currently own cameras from Canon, Nikon, Sony, GoPro and will probably buy an M4/3 soon. All of them have good and bad points. I also still shoot film

'Just switching' to Nikon with a single body and lens is no cheap endeavor. Especially if the primary purpose is just for one type of photography. Throw in various necessary accessories, the price gets up to nearly $6000.

It is also possible that Canon meets the vast majority of your needs for everything but that one or two types of photography.

You CAN be discontent and still stuck with a system that isn't delivering what you need, want, and are unwilling to dump money into an alternative/additional brand for.

Wouldn't selling that 5D3 and 16-35 help offset the cost of a D810 and 14-24 quite a bit ? The D810 has substantially closed up the all-around versatility gap between the D800 and 5D3, so that seems like a viable option. There's also the Sony A7 option that dtaylor mentioned. Being able to use Canon glass on a Sonikon sensor/body seems like a winner to me if you need better DR for landscapes. Then if Canon ever makes a sensor with DR suitable for your needs, you can just sell the A7 which will have brought you years of DR superiority without ever having to change systems.

(People here seem to have missed the fact that I'm only complaining about the 5D III's low ISO performance and noise characteristics. The amount of misrepresentation of my position on this whole subject is staggering, but I guess that's how people react when someone tries to reveal any amount of truth about the REAL quality of Canon sensors at low ISO. Instead of acceptance, denial. Instead of discussion, it's outright hostility or a bunch of crude jokes. Canon sensors suck balls at low ISO, compared to the norm today...it's just the simple truth of the matter. It may not affect everyone's work, but it doesn't change the facts.)

I agree that the D810 has closed the gap...but Nikon does not have anything that compares to the 600 f/4 L II, which is my single largest photography investment for birds/wildlife. The A7r would be the best option. That's still $2300...but a better deal than the D810. If I do buy something....that'll probably be it. I just can't put $5300+ into a D810 and 14-24...not with all my astrophotography needs.

When brand loyalty runs deep, facts are never enough to sway people's opinions

SoNikon sensors are better than Canon's current offerings at low ISO. Period. End of story. I see no need to be in denial over it. If I were in your situation, the Sony A7 or A7R would be intriguing options to consider. Does it suck that you'd have to buy another body outside the Canon system to fulfill all your shooting needs? Of course, but it is what it is, and trying to convince people that don't want to be convinced is a losing proposition.

If I had more product photography gigs, where I could benefit from the finer tonal gradations that Exmor sensors offer, I'd buy an A7 in a heartbeat. However, I just don't have enough of those types of gigs to warrant the expense, so I'll make do with and be happy with my 5D3

(People here seem to have missed the fact that I'm only complaining about the 5D III's low ISO performance and noise characteristics. The amount of misrepresentation of my position on this whole subject is staggering, but I guess that's how people react when someone tries to reveal any amount of truth about the REAL quality of Canon sensors at low ISO. Instead of acceptance, denial. Instead of discussion, it's outright hostility or a bunch of crude jokes. Canon sensors suck balls at low ISO, compared to the norm today...it's just the simple truth of the matter. It may not affect everyone's work, but it doesn't change the facts.)

Yes. Especially when there are three Sony FF bodies that you can adapt Canon lenses to and still have aperture control, AF, and IS! You don't even have to switch, just add. AF is dog slow, but who cares for a high DR landscape?

If you're posting in thread after thread on a Canon forum complaining about DR but you haven't switched or added a Sony A7 body, then DR isn't actually the issue.

You have a point. Depending on what you like to photograph and can afford, the "grass is greener" effect can largely be averted by mixing brands; and mirrorless bodies make that rather easy if you don't mind fiddling with adapters, manual focus, etc. (I've been enjoying the process of taking photos more, not less, since taking on this somewhat less convenient approach.)

But if anyone thinks the whining etc. here is predictable and tedious, try m43 rumors, where there seems to be none of the depth of discussion/knowledge found here, and where every topic, no matter what, gets invaded by fools whining about the fact that because 43 sensors are smaller than aps-c & ff the cameras are crap and not worth anyone's attention, and seems dominated by cheerleading fanboys.

No, but you can replace your sensor each time you replace your memory card (err, roll) and full frame is pretty much standard. The capacity is a bit limited and without an LCD on the back, it's a bit harder to use. Also, the photos have to taken to a special person for post processing and they give you strange things printed on paper or in little white holders in exchange. PhotoCDs are available from some places. The cool part is that you don't have to worry about post or printing stuff yourself - unless you like smelly chemicals and dark rooms with red lighting...

As for the topic itself, the biggest complaint I hear from my Nikon pals is about the lenses. They don't feel like Nikon's lens selection is as varied or up-to-date as Canon and they don't like the pricing, especially for the 800mm.

Forums are used a lot for complaining about this and that. No matter the brand.

Currently the Nikon forum crowd is clearly happier than the Canon forum crowd - browse the dp review forums and take a look yourself. You quickly get an impression of the general trend. You will also see quite a lot more people writing that they are (considering) going from Nikon to Canon than the other way around.

It used to be the opposite. Like when the original 5D came out as the first affordable full frame camera - and Nikon failed to respond for years. Adding to insult when the 5DII came out the Nikon forum crowd was mortified.

D800 finally turned the tables. However, it came with some quirks that cooled initial enthusiasm. Still, with the D810 that now seems all forgotten.